For any successful coaching model, development potential is more important than mere performance. Know more about data gathering, subject acquisition and data analysis methodology and find out conclusions regarding developmental coaching, coach training and coaching practice.

1. 1
An Integrated Model of Developmental Coaching™:
Researching New Ways of Coaching and Coach Education
Otto E. Laske, PhD PsyD M.Ed.
President, Laske and Associates LLC
Olaske@cdremsite.com
www.cdremsite.com
Copyright © Otto E. Laske 2003
In this paper, I report research on a novel coaching model, that of Developmental
Coaching™. The model is based on 50 years of research in adult development over the lifespan,
specifically the work of Jean Piaget, Robert Kegan, Michael Basseches, Elliott Jaques, and Otto
Laske (see www.cdremsite.com). Overall, I conclude that coaching narrowly focused on
performance rather than mental growth misconstrues the human potential as well as the potential
of coaching practice and education. I conclude, in addition, that the outcome of coaching
strongly depends on the coach’s own developmental level.
The paper comprises four parts, A to D. In A, I outline the raison d’etre of a coaching model
focused on developmental potential rather than mere performance, and introduce the research
questions. In B, I describe the research set-up including subject acquisition, data gathering, and
data analysis methodology employed. In C, I report and discuss the findings of the research,
while in D, I draw conclusions for the application of Developmental Coaching™ to coaching
practice and coach training.
A. Introduction
1. Purpose of the Research
Before attending to the research questions, the findings, and their interpretation, it
is important to understand the PURPOSE of the research. Five primary purposes stand
out:
• First, to broaden the foundations of present coaching practice and coach education
from an adult-developmental perspective, in terms of which coaching is an
intervention in clients’ adult development over the life span.
• Second, to develop new resources for educating coaches based on validated public-
domain theories of adult development.
• Third, to understand in greater depth how clients experience coaching based on their
present developmental level.
• Fourth, to make coaches more effective by making them more knowledgeable about
their clients’ Structure of Interpretation (that is, the way the world ‘shows up’ for
their clients).
• Fifth, to foster coaching tools helping clients attain a higher level of self generation
and self correction.
2. Focus of Developmental Coaching
It is my persisent finding in practicing developmental coaching that coaches can
be effective only to the extent that they know their material. In this regard, coaching is
like sculpting or music composition: one has to know one's material. In this study, I show
that ‘material’ equates to the way ‘the world shows up for the client,’ or Structure of
Interpretation (Flaherty, 1999). In 1998, I began to study executive coaching, intent on

2. 2
finding and spelling out the few developmental variables that determine clients’ Structure
of Interpretation. The purpose was to strengthen clients’ long-term competence.
In this short informal summary of my findings, I address the four developmental
variables I have found to be of crucial importance for achieving coaching goals. Since
these four variables are interrelated and regard the way people make meaning of --or
interpret-- experiences in life and at work, they are said to make up clients’ Structure of
Intepretation. I call these variables DEVELOPMENTAL in the sense of developmental
science, of capabilities developing predictably and step-wise over an individual's adult
life span, between 25 and 100 years of age.
This paper explains briefly how a Structure of Interpretation is defined, how it is
determined for a sample of six executives, and what follows from developmental findings
for giving feedback, enrolling clients, engaging in coaching conversations, and
determining the outcome of coaching. I conclude with suggestions for coaching practice
and opportunities for developmental coach education.
3. Distinction of Behavioral vs. Developmental Variables of Coaching
Behavioral variables of coaching spell out what an individual DOES, while
developmental variables describe what an individual IS, or his/her present state of
BEING. Evidently, the two classes of variables are interrelated, namely in such a way
that BEING DETERMINES DOING. Developmental variables thus describe what an
individual CAN POTENTIALLY DO, and what is presently “over their head.”As a
consequence, we can speak of the Structure of Interpretation as determining an
individual’s CAPABILITY CEILING. This ceiling is in constant evolution which is
referred to as “adult development over the life span.” Adult development leads to a point
where the person’s unique developmental potential has been fully realized (except for
cases where the potential is so huge that the person cannot realize it during his/her life
time).
4. Two Aspects of an Individual’s Capability Ceiling
In developmental coaching it is evidently of primary interest to know what an
individual’s present capability ceiling is, and how and in what direction that ceiling is
likely to be 'raised' as the individual continues living and working. Technically, this is
determined by the CDREM™ methodology (Corporate Development Readiness and
Effectiveness Measure, see www.cdremsite.com). CDREM™ addresses both the
behavioral and developmental aspects of an individual’s capability. This research is
restricted to the developmental aspects assessed by CDREM™.
The research addresses two crucial dimensions of adult development over the life
span: resources for self generation and self correction. By ‘self generation’ is meant the
ability to renew oneself by developing a new self image, finding new inner resources
within oneself, letting go of assumptions and values no longer appropriate or useful, and
being aware of one’s developmental potential and risk. By ‘self correction’ is meant the
ability to conceptualize and scan the environment in an increasingly systemic manner,
flexibly alter one’s courses of action, analyze one’s own habits and limits, and become a
continuous learner. Clearly, these two aspects of the individual’s capability ceiling are
interrelated: you need to have certain cognitive resources to self generate, and you need

3. 3
to have certain resources of self awareness to make use of the cognitive resources you
possess.
5. Form of the Structure of Interpretation
‘Structure of Interpretation’ is nothing mysterious. It is a system of interrelated
developmental and behavioral variables that determine “how the world shows up for the
client.” Since how the world shows up for somebody constrains his/her options, I also
refer to Structure of Interpretation as clients’ present capability ceiling. The Structure of
Interpretation has the following form:
Insert Table 1 here.
As shown, Structure of Interpretation is composed of:
• A Self Awareness Profile (SAP), including developmental level and risk-clarity-
potential index (RCP) that determine resources for self generation.
• A Complexity Awareness Profile (CAP), comprising cognitive level and systemic
thinking index (STI) that determine resources for self correction.
• A Behavioral Profile (consisting of three indexes) that explains why an individual’s
performance presently is what it is.
All research questions of this study refer to the first two profiles. We say that the
developmental profiles (BEING) determine an individual's presently applied capability
(behavioral profile or DOING).
6. Three Research Questions
In this study, three main research questions were asked:
• What is the Structure of Interpretation of the six executives involved in the study?
• In what way is the executives’ “change story” (story of how coaching has “changed’
them) a reflection of their Structure of Interpretation?
• What prediction can be made regarding benefit of coaching due to executives’
Structure of Interpretation and change story?
The first question, regarding Structure of Interpretation, can be spelled out in four
subquestions, one each for the four developmental variables measured through
CDREM™ (Corporate Development Readiness and Effectiveness Measure):
1.1 What is the executives’ level of mental growth?
1.2 What is the executives’ developmental risk and potential?
1.3 What is the executives’ index of ‘systemic thinking’
1.4 What is the executives’ balance of critical vs. constructive thinking?
The second question, regarding executives’ change story, is focused on the difference
between behavioral change and developmental advance (or regression):
2.1 In what way is behavioral change through coaching determined by executives’
developmental level and potential?
2.2 Is there congruence between executives’Structure of Interpretation and the type of
behavioral change they are reporting?

4. 4
2.3 Is the experience of developmental advance typical for higher, rather than lower,
developmental levels?
The third question, regarding developmental predictions of coaching outcome, deals
with the benefits of developmental intake as a basis of coaching practice:
3.1 What prediction(s) regarding the client’s coaching experience and coaching outcome
can be made, given a particular Structure of Interpretation?
3.2 What coaching plan can be systematically derived from the developmental findings?
3.3 How can the executive best be enrolled in the coaching, based on his/her Structure of
Interpretation?
3.4 How may developmentally provocative coaching conversations be conducted, to help
the client realize his/her developmental potential.
B. Research Setup and Methodology
1. General Notions
This study investigates the change story of six high-level executives, named by
their coach as experiencing developmental advance, not just behavioral change. Coaches
act as informants regarding their client and his/her host organization. Executives included
in the study have been in coaching for 6 months to 3 years. All executives voiced that
coaching had helped them “reframe” their self-image and function in the organization.
Two interviews were administered to the participants: first, Laske’s Professional Agenda
Interview and, second (one week later) Lahey et al.’s Subject Object Interview (both of
which are part of CDREM™). Both of these are tools for developmental ‘intake;’ they
have been validated in developmental research.
2. Complexity Awareness Interview
In terms of content, the first one-hour interview is focused on the way in which
executives function in the organization, both in terms of self and role. The interview
focuses on executives’ cognitive profile, more specifically, their capability of thinking
systemically (which in CDREM™ indicates their current potential capability). The
interview reveals the executive’s complexity awareness profile (CAP). It is based on
three guide questions addressing changes in three domains or “Houses:” the Task House,
the Self House, and the Organizational House (in this order), as shown below:
Insert Table 2 here.
Interviewing starts in the Task House, and proceeds to the Self and Organizational
Houses (Laske, 1999b).
3. Self Awareness Interview
The second one-hour interview is focused on self awareness. In terms of content,
the second interview makes use of ten projective verbal “prompts”written on index cards,
from which executives select whatever topic is most salient for them, in an order that
suits their interview agenda.
Insert Table 3 here.

5. 5
By conversing about 3-4 of these topics, executives reveal their Self Awareness Profile
(SAP). The interview focuses on executives’ way of constructing the world for
themselves (their meaning making), which in CDREM™ indicates their future potential
capability.
Both interviews are confidential, and are recorded for the purpose of evaluation
(“scoring”) according to CDREM™ criteria. These criteria are focused on developmental
potential. In terms of developmental coaching, assessing behavioral profile (present
performance) without also assessing potential capability is counterproductive. After all, a
client’s state of BEING determines his or her DOING.
C. Discussion of Research Outcomes
Research Question #1: Structure of Interpretation
1. Findings of the Study Contextualized
Developmental variables describe a non-linear stepwise progression from
adolescent to mature adult levels. Between age 25 and 100, adults pass through up to 16
levels of self awareness, and a large number of system thinking configurations. In order
to appreciate the findings of this study, the following sobering statistics regarding adult-
developmental attainment is of interest:
Insert Table 4 here.
As shown, only 25% of adults reach self awareness level 4 (self authoring), while less
than 10% reach self awareness level 5 whose hallmark is leadership capability.
2. Group Findings
In order to convey the meaning of the findings, I comment on the group as a
whole. In compact form, the executive group scored as follows:
Insert Table 5 here.
3. Study Outcomes Seen From A Coaching Perspective
• Developmental level: Since all participants reach level 4, of self authoring, a primary
coaching task is to increase self generative capacity by assisting clients in standing
back from their own value system, emotions, and assumptions, to increase self
awareness.
• Developmental potential: 4 out of 6 executives show a developmental potential larger
than risk of ‘regressing’ to a lower developmental level (under conditions of stress or
toxic organizational climate). Since purely behavioral coaching remains unaware of
developmental potential, it is likely to waste it.
• Systemic Grasp: Only 2 out of 6 executives show a complexity awareness profile
commensurate with their developmental level (S5 & S6). As a consequence, a
majority of clients is less accomplished in their interpersonal (SAP) than their task
competences (CAP).
• Critical vs. constructive thinking: Executives show a wide range of complexity
awareness. All of them show “cognitive imbalance” that leads to overemphasizing

6. 6
either change or stability, with an attendant lack of ability to think systemically and
take multiple viewpoints.
Research Question 2: “Change Story”
4. Influence of Structure of Interpretation on Change Story
• Executives’ change story (their experience of changes through coaching) tended to
reflect their differing Structure of Interpretation, indicating that coaching is
experienced differently depending on the client’s developmental level.
• Executives with a higher developmental level (S5) and systemic grasp (S4-S6) used
coaching as a medium for self development, not simply skills development. However,
executives did not truly “own” their developmental potential, due to the behavioral
coaching they were engaged in.
D. Conclusions from Findings (Answers to Research Question #3)
1. Conclusions for Coaching Practice
1. On the basis of additional, behavioral data, a precise and realistic coaching plan can
be formulated.
2. Since the benefit of coaching is a function of developmental potential (readiness),
lack of insight into clients’ Structure of Interpretation reduces coaching effectiveness.
3. Since a client’s Structure of Interpretation is prognostic, developmental intake
enhances the ability to formulate realistic coaching plans and lead coaching
conversations commensurate with clients’ developmental level.
4. Enrolling clients and giving feedback are potentiated when carried out on the basis of
their specific Structure of Interpretation (as material of the coaching).
5. The Structure of Interpretation clarifies what areas of developmental deficit can most
supportively be addressed by introducing behavioral stretch goals.
6. Combining developmental with behavioral assessment (as done in CDREM™)
facilitates pinpointing areas of behavioral functioning where developmental potential
can most supportively be promoted.
7. The process and flow of developmental coaching differs from established coaching
practice in that it begins with a developmental intake and ends with a developmental
assessment, as shown below.
Insert Figure 1 here.
2. Consequences for Coach Training
Consequences for coach training straightforwardly follow from the findings. The
five most important are:
1. Coach Training focused on bringing about behavioral change rather than also mental
growth (developmental advance) misconstrues the human potential as well as the
potential of coaching practice and education.
2. Since coaching outcome strongly depends on the coach’s developmental level,
instruction in developmental coaching is a must for coaches, especially master coaches.
3. Instruction in developmental intake, listening, feedback, enrollment and coaching
proper enhances coaching effectiveness as well as the professional status of coaches.
4. Training to become a Certified Developmental Coach™ is available via teleclasses and
workshops. See the Laske and Associates LLC website, www.cdremsite.com.

7. 7
References
Flaherty, J. (1999). Coaching. Boston, MA: Butterworth Heinemann.
Kampa-Kokesch S. & Anderson, M.Z. (2001). Executive coaching: A comprehensive review of
the literature. Consulting Psychology Journal 53(4), 205-229.
Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
Laske, O. (2003). Executive development as adult development. In J. Demick & C. Andreoletti
(Eds.), Handbook of adult development, 565-584. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Publishers.
Laske, O. (2003) www.cdremsite.com.
Laske, O. (2002). Growing the top management team. J. Management Dev., 21(9), 702-727.
Laske, O. (2001). Linking two lines of adult development. Bulletin, Society for Research in Adult
Development, Spring, 8-11.
Laske, O. (2000). Foundations of scholarly consulting. Consulting Psychology Journal 52(3),
178-200.
Laske, O. (1999a). Transformative effects of coaching on executives’ professional agenda.
Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts School of Professional Psychology. Ann Arbor, MI: Bell &
Howell (order no. 9930438).
Laske, O. (1999b). An integrated model of developmental coaching. Consulting Psychology
Journal 51(3), 139-159.
Schein, E. H. (1987). Process consultation (vol. 2). Reading: Addision-Wesley.
Wilber, K. (2000). Integral psychology. Boston: Shambhala.

8. 8
Tables and Figures.
Table 1. Dimensions of the Structure of Interpretation.
Table 2. Domains of Complexity Awareness.
Table 3. Self Awareness Prompts, Second Interview.
Table 4. Statistics of Adult Developmental Attainment.
Table 5. Study Outcomes.
Figure 1. Process and Flow of Developmental Coaching.

9. 9
Table 1. Dimensions of the Capability Data Type*
Future potential capability Behavioral Correlates
Self awareness profile (SAP)
1. Developmental level Positioning of self in relation to
others; degree of self-
centeredness of value system
and emotional reactions
2. Risk-clarity-potential index {RCP} Degree of self confidence;
predictability; ability to take
risks; ability to take
responsibility for own situation
and decisions
Current potential capability
Complexity awareness profile (CAP)
3. Systemic grasp [STI] Cogency of observations and
judgments; ability to reflect on
own assumptions
4. Cognitive balance Ability to suspend judgment,
take multiple perspectives, and
form a rounded systemic
picture of what is going on.
Applied capability Not assessed in the study
Behavioral profile (NPP)**
5. Energy sink Index measuring gaps between
subjective need and
organizational pressure
6. Frustration index Index measuring frustration on
the job
7. Effectiveness index An index of performance
ability at a particular level of
organizational accountability
* The three profiles correspond to three aspects of human capability: future potential capability (SAP),
current potential capability (CAP), and applied capability (present performance).
** Behavioral indexes are determined based on questions regarding Self Conduct, Task Focus, and
Emotional Intelligence.

10. 10
Table 2. Domains of Complexity Awareness.
Self House Task House Organizational House
Self and Integration Leadership in
Other of role and self organization
Awareness

11. 11
Table 3.. Self Awareness Prompts, Second Interview.
1. Accomplishment/success
2. Changes
3. Control
4. Limits
5. Outside of
6. Frustration
7. Important to me
8. Sharing
9. Strong stand, conviction
10. Taking risks

12. 12
Table 4. Statistics of Adult-Developmental Attainment.
Main Developmental Characteristic % Attained**
Levels*
5 Self aware (‘leader’) 9
4 Self authoring 25
(‘manager’)
3 Other dependent 55
(‘contributor’)
2 Instrumental 10
* In Kegan’s nomenclature (1982), there are four intermediate levels between subsequent main levels.
** About 1% reach levels higher than level 5.

13. 13
Table 5. Study Outcomes.
Participant Development- Development Critical vs. Systemic
al level* -al Risk vs. Constructive Grasp****
[‘Level 4’ = ‘self- Potential** Thinking
authoring’] (Cr:CO)***
S1 4 R>P Cr > Co Low
S2 4 R<P Cr > Co Low
S3 4 R>P Cr > Co Nil
S4 4 R<P Cr < Co Moderate
S5 1 step beyond R<P Cr > Co High
level 4
S6 4 R<P Cr < Co High
*’Level 4’ indicates the developmental position of self authoring which requires an integrated value
system defining the individual’s integrity.
**’Risk’ means risk of falling back to the lower adjacent level, while ‘Potential’ is the likelihood of
reaching the subsequent developmental level.
*** Gaps between critical and constructive thinking characterize “challenged” systems thinking.
**** ‘Systemic grasp’ indicates ability to think holistically and systemically, and take multiple
perspectives.

14. 14
1. Establish a relationship with
the client
Business Contract of
Deliverables/Logistics
2. Observe, assess Client’s
(interview), and analyze Structure of CDREM™
Interpretation
3. Give developmental
feedback, and co-
create a coaching plan
Input of a third party
(coaching sponsor)
4. Enroll and contract
(engage client behaviorally)
5. Coaching conversations
(geared to developmental level)
6. Assess developmental-
behavioral outcome (determine
dev. advance if any) Assess entire
coaching program
Fig. 1. Process and Flow of Developmental Coaching
Commentary:
As shown, in developmental coaching:
• The Structure of Interpretation is the focal material of developmental coaching, in giving
feedback, enrollment, leading coaching conversations, and final assessment.
• Coaching is terminated by an assessment that determines whether a developmental advance
has or has not occurred, and in what form.
• In this assessment, the initial Structure of Interpretation serves as a base line.
• If this procedure is followed for every coaching contract, entire corporate coaching
programs can be precisely assessed in terms of effectiveness.